Originally posted by ivanhoe
Do you believe all this ?
EDIT: I mean do you think this, the above, is true ?
The RCC gives credence to this theory as well. In the NAB, the prologoue to the
Gospel of St Matthew includes the following:
The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of compsoition of this gospel have received
many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability.
The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following.
The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus anemd Matthew is
untenable becasue the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark, and it is
hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came
from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories....
The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew
not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material not found in Mk that
coreesponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This
material, called 'Q', represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark
and Q are sources common to the other two synoptic gospels; hence the name the "Two-Source
Theory" given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics. [Parenthetical material is
left out for expediency]